Full Version: Privatizing the military
More and more of the duties traditionally assumed by the military are being contracted out to private corporations. One of the advantages from a political standpoint is as civilians they can operate more under the radar and play the shady side of the street without too much uproar.
Is contracting out our wars to principally profit making institutions a road we want to go down? I know from the camp follower to the hired gun and weapons manufacturer these folks have always been around. I guess it's the scale and particular character of some of the contracts that disturbs me. But I want to get your thoughts.
Privatizing the military
Is contracting out our wars to principally profit making institutions a road we want to go down? I know from the camp follower to the hired gun and weapons manufacturer these folks have always been around. I guess it's the scale and particular character of some of the contracts that disturbs me. But I want to get your thoughts.
Privatizing the military
QUOTE
With the war on terror already a year old and the possibility of war against Iraq growing by the day, a modern version of an ancient practice — one as old as warfare itself — is reasserting itself at the Pentagon. Mercenaries, as they were once known, are thriving — only this time they are called private military contractors, and some are even subsidiaries of Fortune 500 companies.
The Pentagon cannot go to war without them.
In the darker recesses of the world, private contractors go where the Pentagon would prefer not to be seen, carrying out military exercises for the American government, far from Washington's view. In the last few years, they have sent their employees to Bosnia, Nigeria, Macedonia, Colombia and other global hot spots
During the Persian Gulf war in 1991, one of every 50 people on the battlefield was an American civilian under contract; by the time of the peacekeeping effort in Bosnia in 1996, the figure was one in 10. No one knows for sure how big this secretive industry is, but some military experts estimate the global market at $100 billion.
In Bosnia, employees of DynCorp were found to be operating a sex-slave ring of young women who were held for prostitution after their passports were confiscated. In Croatia, local forces, trained by MPRI, used what they learned to conduct one of the worst episodes of "ethnic cleansing," an event that left more than 100,000 homeless and hundreds dead and resulted in war-crimes indictments. No employee of either firm has ever been charged in these incidents.
The Pentagon cannot go to war without them.
In the darker recesses of the world, private contractors go where the Pentagon would prefer not to be seen, carrying out military exercises for the American government, far from Washington's view. In the last few years, they have sent their employees to Bosnia, Nigeria, Macedonia, Colombia and other global hot spots
During the Persian Gulf war in 1991, one of every 50 people on the battlefield was an American civilian under contract; by the time of the peacekeeping effort in Bosnia in 1996, the figure was one in 10. No one knows for sure how big this secretive industry is, but some military experts estimate the global market at $100 billion.
In Bosnia, employees of DynCorp were found to be operating a sex-slave ring of young women who were held for prostitution after their passports were confiscated. In Croatia, local forces, trained by MPRI, used what they learned to conduct one of the worst episodes of "ethnic cleansing," an event that left more than 100,000 homeless and hundreds dead and resulted in war-crimes indictments. No employee of either firm has ever been charged in these incidents.
It looks like yet another example of the kind of "privatization" some favor. The money still comes out of taxpayers' pockets, but those who those who spend it are even further removed from accountability to those taxpayers than if the functions were performed by government itself. Some people think it's OK because it's the "private sector" (even though the money never comes anywhere near a free market) but I call it what it is: patronage and corruption. The only thing worse than having money taken and spent by the government is having it taken by the government and spent by cronies.
Defense from internal and external aggressors is the primary function of government. Obviously our military depends heavily on defense contractors. Defense contractors is probably the best option when it comes to supplying the military with everything from rations and uniforms to tanks and fighter planes. When it comes to personnell I would be very careful.
Over the last decade or so, congress has lowered the troop strength levels considerably. Yet, even without the Soviet bear staring us down the world over, the military mission has increased tenfold. Instead of one large terrible enemy, we now have 20-30 smaller, terrible enemies.
Contractors provide personnel for every conceivable support position from KP in the mess halls to instructors to civil affairs. It is simply a fact of life......they are indispensable nowadays. I can't speak for the hiring practices or the contract bidding....but they're here to stay unless congress raises the troop strength.
Contractors provide personnel for every conceivable support position from KP in the mess halls to instructors to civil affairs. It is simply a fact of life......they are indispensable nowadays. I can't speak for the hiring practices or the contract bidding....but they're here to stay unless congress raises the troop strength.
Dingo
The American military machine IS the A.C.M.
American Corporate Military.
Their job is to secure the corporate dominance of American companies while retaining the comfort status of Americans regardless of others.
You know you will also be a loser in your great grandkids era.
You know it is just a temporary gift to yourself.
You know history is littered with the carcases of "The most powerfull Nations" who thought they could never lose.
I honestly think you know better.
Be care to you all...........Alan
The American military machine IS the A.C.M.
American Corporate Military.
Their job is to secure the corporate dominance of American companies while retaining the comfort status of Americans regardless of others.
You know you will also be a loser in your great grandkids era.
You know it is just a temporary gift to yourself.
You know history is littered with the carcases of "The most powerfull Nations" who thought they could never lose.
I honestly think you know better.
Be care to you all...........Alan
QUOTE(Alan Wood @ May 26 2003, 09:29 PM)
Dingo
The American military machine IS the A.C.M.
American Corporate Military.
Their job is to secure the corporate dominance of American companies while retaining the comfort status of Americans.
You know you will not win........
You know it is just a temporary gift to yourself.
You know history is littered with the carcases of "The most powerfull Nations" who thought they could never lose.
You know better.
Regards and care to you...Alan
The American military machine IS the A.C.M.
American Corporate Military.
Their job is to secure the corporate dominance of American companies while retaining the comfort status of Americans.
You know you will not win........
You know it is just a temporary gift to yourself.
You know history is littered with the carcases of "The most powerfull Nations" who thought they could never lose.
You know better.
Regards and care to you...Alan
It must be sad little place down under there mate. You express nothing but envy and jealousy for the life we've made for ourselves in America. Rather than criticize and pine away for what we have, why not turn your efforts towards making your own country a better place?
The sorriest thing of all is the number of 'eyes' you find at this particular place to agree with your anti-American views. Thank God this is by no means a representation of the USA on the whole.
Alan & Passion - you're both off topic.
Let's all get back to Dingo's debate:
Let's all get back to Dingo's debate:
QUOTE(Dingo @ May 26 2003, 08:52 PM)
Is contracting out our wars to principally profit making institutions a road we want to go down? ... I want to get your thoughts.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ May 26 2003, 09:48 PM)
QUOTE(Alan Wood @ May 26 2003, 09:29 PM)
Dingo
The American military machine IS the A.C.M.
American Corporate Military.
Their job is to secure the corporate dominance of American companies while retaining the comfort status of Americans.
You know you will not win........
You know it is just a temporary gift to yourself.
You know history is littered with the carcases of "The most powerfull Nations" who thought they could never lose.
You know better.
Regards and care to you...Alan
The American military machine IS the A.C.M.
American Corporate Military.
Their job is to secure the corporate dominance of American companies while retaining the comfort status of Americans.
You know you will not win........
You know it is just a temporary gift to yourself.
You know history is littered with the carcases of "The most powerfull Nations" who thought they could never lose.
You know better.
Regards and care to you...Alan
QUOTE
It must be sad little place down under there mate. You express nothing but envy and jealousy for the life we've made for ourselves in America. Rather than criticize and pine away for what we have, why not turn your efforts towards making your own country a better place?
The sorriest thing of all is the number of 'eyes' you find at this particular place to agree with your anti-American views. Thank God this is by no means a representation of the USA on the whole.
The sorriest thing of all is the number of 'eyes' you find at this particular place to agree with your anti-American views. Thank God this is by no means a representation of the USA on the whole.
No 'mate' I do not in any way regard the "zombie" likes as you with anything less than pity.
The sadness I feel cannot be expressed in way that is understandable to you. The life you have made for yourselves in America is yours and yours alone, few of us want the extreme highs and lows but most of us minions will get it by force wether we want or not.
The sad little place you refer to down under is a place you will never know.
GOD HELP AMERICA
Alan.......
Alan, I'll assume you were posting as I was posting my previous warning... 
GET ON TOPIC.
GET ON TOPIC.
QUOTE
Is contracting out our wars to principally profit making institutions a road we want to go down? ... I want to get your thoughts.
Okay, here's my thought:
Putting profit into war begets war.
End of thought.
All right, I'll go a little further: Taking our sense of military to capitalism is taking us to a government that is no longer representative.
Do I get to vote for these contractors?
Nope.
Putting profit into war begets war.
End of thought.
All right, I'll go a little further: Taking our sense of military to capitalism is taking us to a government that is no longer representative.
Do I get to vote for these contractors?
Nope.
OK Jaime..
Silly old Aussie that I am...
Contracting out our wars to principally profit making institutions a road we want to go down
Mate..........
Who the hell cares??...........
You Yanks are going to do whatever you wanna do.
All the words in the World will not adjust the absolute faith Americans have in themselves and their power.
This is sad.
I am also sad becase history is littered with the carcasses of powerfull nations.
If I had to choose one to die with it would be America, and it's people who I will NEVER learn to hate.
Silly old Aussie that I am...
Contracting out our wars to principally profit making institutions a road we want to go down
Mate..........
Who the hell cares??...........
You Yanks are going to do whatever you wanna do.
All the words in the World will not adjust the absolute faith Americans have in themselves and their power.
This is sad.
I am also sad becase history is littered with the carcasses of powerfull nations.
If I had to choose one to die with it would be America, and it's people who I will NEVER learn to hate.
In theory at least as long as you are in government you are part of a chain of command that goes back to the voters. In a private corporation the chain of command presumably goes back to the stockholders. As Eisenhower warned the military industrial complex was a strange brew. Having profits as a bottom line objective can't help but compromise a moral public purpose.
It is easy to forget than when folks like Hitler and SH were on the positive side of the money stream we were quite deaf to their already well documented ugly policies and plans. Kuwait was our wakeup call in Saddam's case. And it was manifestly about a change in the oil picture.
Private corporations bring necessary skills but they also bring a world view of their own. If we are going to survive to the end of this century we have to find a world view that is human centered and not profit centered. Profits have their place but belong in a narrower scope of life. They shouldn't be central to a nation's international purpose.
If war has a legitimate reason it is to bring about a just peace for all, not simply an increased investment opportunity for some. Do you think Halliburton gets that?
It is easy to forget than when folks like Hitler and SH were on the positive side of the money stream we were quite deaf to their already well documented ugly policies and plans. Kuwait was our wakeup call in Saddam's case. And it was manifestly about a change in the oil picture.
Private corporations bring necessary skills but they also bring a world view of their own. If we are going to survive to the end of this century we have to find a world view that is human centered and not profit centered. Profits have their place but belong in a narrower scope of life. They shouldn't be central to a nation's international purpose.
If war has a legitimate reason it is to bring about a just peace for all, not simply an increased investment opportunity for some. Do you think Halliburton gets that?
QUOTE(Dingo @ May 27 2003, 01:24 AM)
If war has a legitimate reason it is to bring about a just peace for all, not simply an increased investment opportunity for some. Do you think Halliburton gets that?
Actually, yes I do. While all corps are there to make money, most do it in a responsible manner. Most of the time. When they don't they suffer the backlash. Sometimes, as in Enron's case, that may be too little too late. But more often than not, economic consequences serve to keep them in line.
Maybe you'd care to tell us what Haliburton's done to bring itself into question, other than earning a major contract in Iraq.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ May 27 2003, 06:03 AM)
QUOTE(Dingo @ May 27 2003, 01:24 AM)
If war has a legitimate reason it is to bring about a just peace for all, not simply an increased investment opportunity for some. Do you think Halliburton gets that?
Actually, yes I do. While all corps are there to make money, most do it in a responsible manner. Most of the time. When they don't they suffer the backlash. Sometimes, as in Enron's case, that may be too little too late. But more often than not, economic consequences serve to keep them in line.
Maybe you'd care to tell us what Haliburton's done to bring itself into question, other than earning a major contract in Iraq.
Halliburton has been part of our general ME oil policy. Can you say that policy has been about a just peace for that region? Did we help SH come to power to secure a just peace for Iraq?
General Smedley Butler, who was twice awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, said it very well. To paraphrase, "the flag follows the money and the soldiers follow the flag." He referred to this game as a racket, an international version of what Al Capone was doing in Chicago at the time.
Perhaps you have some information on Halliburton's high level of political responsibility in the ME. I'm all ears.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ May 27 2003 @ 09:03 AM)
While all corps are there to make money, most do it in a responsible manner. Most of the time. When they don't they suffer the backlash.
Worldcom/MCI lands Iraq contract
For those who don't remember, Worldcom is the telecommunications company still trying to rebound from that $11 billion accounting scandal. And yeah, that's with a B.
Responsible? Suffering the backlash? Not in America! Worldcom is indeed flying high with government deals and contracts, including those tied to war (both Afghanistan and Iraq).
Apparently, the troops are encountering problems with private contracting now that they are in hostile territory. Many are failing to show up.
private defense contractors
private defense contractors
QUOTE
One thing became clear in Iraq. "You cannot order civilians into a war zone," said Linda K. Theis, an official at the Army's Field Support Command, which oversees some civilian logistics contracts. "People can sign up to that -- but they can also back out."
As a result, soldiers lived in the mud, then the heat and dust. Back home, a group of mothers organized a drive to buy and ship air conditioners to their sons. One Army captain asked a reporter to send a box of nails and screws to repair his living quarters and latrines.
As a result, soldiers lived in the mud, then the heat and dust. Back home, a group of mothers organized a drive to buy and ship air conditioners to their sons. One Army captain asked a reporter to send a box of nails and screws to repair his living quarters and latrines.
I understand what is being said about the contractors providing services to military personnel and that this is vital to a successful operation.
Is this military contracting mercenary soldiers to fight the battles as well? If so,
1) Does their relative lack of supervision allow mercenaries to play fast and loose with the Geneva Convention rules?
2) If professional soldiers are deployed the way our troops are, are they making more money than our best and brightest while doing essentially the same job?
If the answer to these two questions is yes, it STINKS. Outsourcing military jobs when our soldiers put their lives on the line for a mere pittance is incredibly unfair. Some of that money used to finance the private contractors could make a great deal of difference in the life of a volunteer soldier's family.
Would someone please enlighten me?
Is this military contracting mercenary soldiers to fight the battles as well? If so,
1) Does their relative lack of supervision allow mercenaries to play fast and loose with the Geneva Convention rules?
2) If professional soldiers are deployed the way our troops are, are they making more money than our best and brightest while doing essentially the same job?
If the answer to these two questions is yes, it STINKS. Outsourcing military jobs when our soldiers put their lives on the line for a mere pittance is incredibly unfair. Some of that money used to finance the private contractors could make a great deal of difference in the life of a volunteer soldier's family.
Would someone please enlighten me?
The answer to your question PE is NO.
Contractors employed by the military are in support roles only, technical, mechanical and logistical.
They are not doing the fighting. As for what they are paid, I'm not sure, but it's usuallt cheaper to contract out many of these support roles.
Contractors employed by the military are in support roles only, technical, mechanical and logistical.
They are not doing the fighting. As for what they are paid, I'm not sure, but it's usuallt cheaper to contract out many of these support roles.
Thank you for clarifying that.
It's too bad that these contractors are undependable. That's extra hardship for the military and for the civilians.
It's too bad that these contractors are undependable. That's extra hardship for the military and for the civilians.
Back tracking to Dingos first post there is the question..........
Would the word mercenary be too strong?.
In the modern context it would possibly be a bit over the top....however in the original meaning of the word...............you judge.
From the 'Standard English Desk Dictionary' printed by Oxford Press in 1976.
mercenary adj Working merely for money or other reward; having love of money as motive; hired (now only of soldiers serving with a foreign army)....
In a way ALL soldiers are mercenary..ie: working for money so the real ask is WHO ARE THEY WORKING FOR?.
More to the point, which profit making institutions are they ULTIMATELY working for?.
My belief was succinctly put by Platypus..
No Nation has the military clout of the US, so therefore how should it be used?.
In defence?..
INTERNAL??.
I can understand there may be a few internals who may feel strongly enough to flap a few placards around and break a few fences..is that what you mean??.
Or are you suggesting, by default, America has a problem within and has lost control of it?.
Defence means just that...Defend.
Going out and Zapping others makes enemies and makes defending harder.
Who was it once said "Divide and Conquer".
Regards..Alan
Would the word mercenary be too strong?.
In the modern context it would possibly be a bit over the top....however in the original meaning of the word...............you judge.
From the 'Standard English Desk Dictionary' printed by Oxford Press in 1976.
mercenary adj Working merely for money or other reward; having love of money as motive; hired (now only of soldiers serving with a foreign army)....
QUOTE(Dingo @ May 26 2003, 07:032PM)
.....Is contracting out our wars to principally profit making institutions a road we want to go down?....
In a way ALL soldiers are mercenary..ie: working for money so the real ask is WHO ARE THEY WORKING FOR?.
More to the point, which profit making institutions are they ULTIMATELY working for?.
My belief was succinctly put by Platypus..
QUOTE(Platypus @ May 26 2003, 08:10PM)
..........but I call it what it is: patronage and corruption...........
No Nation has the military clout of the US, so therefore how should it be used?.
In defence?..
QUOTE(Hugo @ May 26 2003, 08:31PM)
....Defense from internal and external aggressors is the primary function of government......
INTERNAL??.
I can understand there may be a few internals who may feel strongly enough to flap a few placards around and break a few fences..is that what you mean??.
Or are you suggesting, by default, America has a problem within and has lost control of it?.
Defence means just that...Defend.
Going out and Zapping others makes enemies and makes defending harder.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ May 26 2003 08:46PM)
....Instead of one large terrible enemy, we now have 20-30 smaller, terrible enemies.
This is sadly so true of the modern, 1915 to now, American muscleWho was it once said "Divide and Conquer".
QUOTE(Dingo @ May 27 2003,01:24AM)
.........if we are going to survive to the end of this century we have to find a world view that is human centered and not profit centered........
Dingo.......I could not agree more with this and the WE means us all.Regards..Alan
QUOTE(Alan Wood @ Aug 18 2003, 01:20 AM)
Back tracking to Dingos first post there is the question..........
Would the word mercenary be too strong?.
In the modern context it would possibly be a bit over the top....however in the original meaning of the word...............you judge.
From the 'Standard English Desk Dictionary' printed by Oxford Press in 1976.
mercenary adj Working merely for money or other reward; having love of money as motive; hired (now only of soldiers serving with a foreign army)....
In a way ALL soldiers are mercenary..ie: working for money so the real ask is WHO ARE THEY WORKING FOR?.
More to the point, which profit making institutions are they ULTIMATELY working for?.
Would the word mercenary be too strong?.
In the modern context it would possibly be a bit over the top....however in the original meaning of the word...............you judge.
From the 'Standard English Desk Dictionary' printed by Oxford Press in 1976.
mercenary adj Working merely for money or other reward; having love of money as motive; hired (now only of soldiers serving with a foreign army)....
QUOTE(Dingo @ May 26 2003, 07:032PM)
.....Is contracting out our wars to principally profit making institutions a road we want to go down?....
In a way ALL soldiers are mercenary..ie: working for money so the real ask is WHO ARE THEY WORKING FOR?.
More to the point, which profit making institutions are they ULTIMATELY working for?.
The definition stated working merely for money or other (assumably tangible) reward.
If you believe that money is either the primary or sole motivation for a US soldier, you aren't very familiar with their payscales.
Mercenaries (of foreign countries, because the US employs none) are highly paid. They are also considered illegal combatants and not protected by the security of any government. If a mercenary is captured, he is on his own and might be tortured or imprisoned with no accountability from the offending government for his treatment.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 18 2003, 10:49 AM)
Mercenaries (of foreign countries, because the US employs none) are highly paid.
Are you sure? Last I heard, Hamid Karzai's special-forces bodyguards had been replaced by a bunch of guys from DynCorp. These guys are paid for by the US, they're functioning as direct replacements for US combat troops, and they're not under US military command. I think that makes them mercenaries employed by the US.
Bodyguards were provided by the US Special Forces in the interim to keep Karzai alive when there were no others capable of doing so.
The role of a bodyguard has never been equated with the role of a mercenary.
The role of a bodyguard has never been equated with the role of a mercenary.
QUOTE(Platypus @ Aug 18 2003, 08:02 AM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 18 2003, 10:49 AM)
Mercenaries (of foreign countries, because the US employs none) are highly paid.
Are you sure? Last I heard, Hamid Karzai's special-forces bodyguards had been replaced by a bunch of guys from DynCorp. These guys are paid for by the US, they're functioning as direct replacements for US combat troops, and they're not under US military command. I think that makes them mercenaries employed by the US.
Like DTOM, I wouldn't classify them as mercenaries. They are specialized bodyguards.
To answer your question, 'Are you sure?' No. I am only certain that we do not directly acknowledge hiring mercenaries. It's speculation from there...It is a very dangerous (but lucrative) job.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Aug 18 2003, 11:11 AM)
The role of a bodyguard has never been equated with the role of a mercenary.
Never? Not even the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Empire, or the mercenary hoplites of the Greek tyrants? The notion of mercenary bodyguards has a rich and ancient history, and the two are often equated. If guarding a head of state in an unstable environment is not equivalent to a combat role, why did we have Special Forces - the very creme de la creme of our combat forces - doing it instead of MPs or something?
OK, let me rephrase so as not to delve into ancient history. In American military tradition, bodyguards and merc's are not interchangable.
We provided SF soldiers to Karzai for two reasons: When the commitment started, there were more Special Forces on the ground than there were MP's.
And providing 'creme de la creme' made a statement concerning our commitment to the new leader.
BTW, whether or not it is considered a combat role or not, (which I would content it is not) MP's are considered combat forces.
We provided SF soldiers to Karzai for two reasons: When the commitment started, there were more Special Forces on the ground than there were MP's.
And providing 'creme de la creme' made a statement concerning our commitment to the new leader.
BTW, whether or not it is considered a combat role or not, (which I would content it is not) MP's are considered combat forces.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Aug 18 2003, 11:49 AM)
BTW, whther or not it is considered a combat role or not, (which I would content it is not) MP's are considered combat forces.
If MPs are combat troops, bodyguards are combat troops. How are these soldiers-for-hire not mercenaries, again?
You're not connecting my dots here...you asked why we had SF instead of MP's protecting Karzai if it was not a combat role.
I replied that it would not have made a difference, as they were both combat forces.
Which consequently is what our forces consisted of in Afghanistan. We pledged to protect Karzai since there were no Afghan police or security services available.
You are free to call DynCorp a bunch of mercenaries, but I'm sure they would take offense to that title. They provide a services which consists of, among many, protective security.
I replied that it would not have made a difference, as they were both combat forces.
Which consequently is what our forces consisted of in Afghanistan. We pledged to protect Karzai since there were no Afghan police or security services available.
You are free to call DynCorp a bunch of mercenaries, but I'm sure they would take offense to that title. They provide a services which consists of, among many, protective security.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Aug 18 2003, 12:15 PM)
You are free to call DynCorp a bunch of mercenaries
I didn't. I said the bodyguards were from DynCorp, not that that's all DynCorp does. BTW, not everyone shares your regular-army disdain for mercenaries. Out here in the civilian world, the distinctions between you and them are a lot less clear and the dismissive phrase "bunch of mercenaries" is unlikely to be used.
You're right that I'm not connecting your dots, though, because I think they're irrelevant dots. Hairsplitting over whether MPs are combat troops might make for a good conversation in the barracks, but it doesn't really address the question of how such obvious soldiers-for-hire in this case are not considered mercenaries. DynCorp and similar "private military companies" are clearly doing real soldiers' work, not just raising tents and cooking meals. For example:
QUOTE
The Department of State has hired DynCorp to provide security for Afghan leader Hamid Karzai, and the Pentagon has signed up Airscan to do surveillance work in the Balkans. In some of these cases, PMC employees carry weapons, serve on the front lines and even engage in combat.
Maybe you can help clear this up. If the bodyguards aren't mercenaries, who would be? Would someone have to be actually behind the controls of a tank or aircraft for you to accept the definition? Would they have to be doing your exact job? Or might people who are just one millimeter behind the "tip of the spear" also be considered front-line combat personnel and thus mercenaries?
QUOTE
the distinctions between you and them are a lot less clear and the dismissive phrase "bunch of mercenaries" is unlikely to be used
This is why I'm posting to this subject. I don't want the public to get the wrong impression of our military. Many partisans have spun the use of contract companies into the big 'military-industrial-defense-war for oil-we're a bunch of imperialists taking over the world' conspiracy.
QUOTE
but it doesn't really address the question of how such obvious soldiers-for-hire in this case are not considered mercenaries. DynCorp and similar "private military companies" are clearly doing real soldiers' work, not just raising tents and cooking meals
The GSA provides security guards and police for many military installations. Does this mean they're mercenaries too? As for real soldiers work........there is no duty position or specified task in a duty position that outlines or requires being a personal bodyguard to a foreign head of state. That function is normally handled by the State Department Diplomatic Security Service.
The bottom line for me is this...bodyguarding is not combat, and you will never see a DynCorp employee leading a combat patrol.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.